Thread: Pre vs Post Tribulation

What is your viewpoint on the pre/posttrib discussion. Frankly Im not sure. As always please use scripture

Hello Joseph,

Welcome to the PB!

Joseph, before you go into this conversation, are you aware of the "no-trib" views? Also, do you know anything about Premil, Postmil and Amil? I'm not taunting you, I just wanted to know how many things you had considered.

Yes I am aware of such view points. I had held to the Pre-trib stance but had seen a post about post-trib and just wondered what the general consensus was. Honestly eschatology is not my field of study. Bu no Im not very familiar with those fields but was aware that they were there. Thank you.

most members of the PB are Amill and Postmill. We see the tribulation as occurring with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D 70 with the antichrist, false prophet and all.

Is there a post-trib dispensational view?

There are a few of them. But they're rare. And it's not as exciting, so they don't write to many NYT best sellers.

I studied under one, Bob Gundry (32 units plus worked for him and he officiated at my wedding 34 years ago). Bob interpreted the premil view in a post-trib way, using dispensational premises. So convincing was he that Walvoord wrote a series of BibSac articles (later published in book form) arguing with Bob. Unfortunately, he misquoted, misread, and misused Bob's material.

George Ladd, the "dean" of historic (i.e., non-dispensational) premil in the 20th century was my seminary prof. He turned me into pretty much of a historic premil until this last year. Riddlebarger's books impacted me significantly on the subject, turning me in the amil direction.

BTW, some amils see a future for ethnic Israel, believe in a future Antichrist, and do not see the meaning of Revelation exhausted in the events surrounding 70 a.d. Cf. Kim Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism and his The Man of Sin.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

George Ladd, the "dean" of historic (i.e., non-dispensational premil in the 20th century was my seminary prof. He turned me into pretty much of a historic premil until this last year. Riddlebarger's books impacted me significantly on the subject, turning me in the amil direction.

BTW, some amils see a future for ethnic Israel, believe in a future Antichrist, and do not see the meaning of Revelation exhausted in the events surrounding 70 a.d. Cf. Kim Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism and his The Man of Sin.

Don't want to get too but--

I pretty much agree with Ladd's position on historic premill, though I admitt I have not read any of Riddlebarger's works. For me the "jury" is still out on Amillenialism. I guess I should probably read Riddlebarger's stuff next.

Any other recommendations on works to read about amill positon?

Originally Posted by JM

Is there a post-trib dispensational view?

Do you mean post-trib Premil view? The late Dr. Walter Martin was so convinced in a post-tribulational premillenial rapture that he sometimes stood at odds with some of his friends. He used to "run" (be friends) with the hard-core Dispys (like Chuck Smith) but was very outspoken about how ridiculous they were for not allowing post or mid tribbers in their pulpits.

I was a post-tribber until the Lord graciously corrected me and led me to the Amil position

Originally Posted by kalawine

Do you mean post-trib Premil view?

No.

Originally Posted by JM

Originally Posted by kalawine

Do you mean post-trib Premil view?

No.

OK. Well, it must be rare indeed (thank goodness) because I've never come in contact with it. That's why I wondered if you meant Premil. No insult to your intelligence intended

Originally Posted by kalawine

Originally Posted by JM

Originally Posted by kalawine

Do you mean post-trib Premil view?

No.

OK. Well, it must be rare indeed (thank goodness) because I've never come in contact with it. That's why I wondered if you meant Premil. No insult to your intelligence intended

When Gundry came out with his The Church and the Tribulation in the 70s, his arguments were persuasive to quite a view in the dispensational camp. He was exegetical, brilliant, and . . . well . . . dispensational in his premises. By the way, Ladd hated it and dismissed it in class saying that he "heard" that Gundry wrote it before he went to Manchester to study for his PhD with F.F. Bruce. Ladd, was a classic historic premil all the way down to a natural aversion (sometimes delivered with sarcasm, often with anger) to the dispensationalism of his youth (which he evidently jettisoned during his PhD work at Harvard).

Originally Posted by kalawine

Originally Posted by JM

Originally Posted by kalawine

Do you mean post-trib Premil view?

No.

OK. Well, it must be rare indeed (thank goodness) because I've never come in contact with it. That's why I wondered if you meant Premil. No insult to your intelligence intended

No problem at all...I've never come in contact with it either.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by kalawine

Originally Posted by JM

No.

OK. Well, it must be rare indeed (thank goodness) because I've never come in contact with it. That's why I wondered if you meant Premil. No insult to your intelligence intended

When Gundry came out with his The Church and the Tribulation in the 70s, his arguments were persuasive to quite a view in the dispensational camp. He was exegetical, brilliant, and . . . well . . . dispensational in his premises. By the way, Ladd hated it and dismissed it in class saying that he "heard" that Gundry wrote it before he went to Manchester to study for his PhD with F.F. Bruce. Ladd, was a classic historic premil all the way down to a natural aversion (sometimes delivered with sarcasm, often with anger) to the dispensationalism of his youth (which he evidently jettisoned during his PhD work at Harvard).

Walter Martin's teaching meant a lot to me before I became Reformed and had any idea that there were any views other than post, mid and pre trib. When I finally found a teaching that didn't seem like pure escapism I was very happy. I don't remember Martin discussing dispensationalism in the teachings but I assume he was talking Historical Premil because he repeatedly proclaimed throughout the lecture that this was "nothing new", "wasn't his idea" and "had been around for centuries."

BTW Dispensationalism seems like pure heresy to me. Maybe I'm being too harsh. I know that the people that know (Huh! The majority of modern Christianty!) who hold to dispy theology don't seem like heretics to me. But the theology itself seems like heresy to me; especially when taken to it's logical conclusion.

Originally Posted by kalawine

Originally Posted by JM

Originally Posted by kalawine

Do you mean post-trib Premil view?

No.

OK. Well, it must be rare indeed (thank goodness) because I've never come in contact with it. That's why I wondered if you meant Premil. No insult to your intelligence intended

I think you'd find that progressive dispys tend to be less dogmatic about pre or post trib. There is more room in that system for the possibility of post-trib.

Let's not forget most of us came to know Christ in dispey churches...I did.

Originally Posted by kalawine

BTW Dispensationalism seems like pure heresy to me. Maybe I'm being too harsh.

Yes, you are.

But the theology itself seems like heresy to me; especially when taken to it's logical conclusion.

And what might that be? Often those in oppostion view an "extreme" conclusion as logical. For instance, the logical conclusion of Calvinism is a lack of evangelism. Paedo baptism logically leads to baptismal regeneration. Dispensationalism logically leads to Arminianism, or Open Theism. Covenantalism logically leads to NPP.

Originally Posted by mshingler

I think you'd find that progressive dispys tend to be less dogmatic about pre or post trib. There is more room in that system for the possibility of post-trib.

You'll find many who don't dogmatically hold to a seven year trib as well, and see more fulfillment in seventy AD than most dispies.

Originally Posted by mshingler

Originally Posted by kalawine

Originally Posted by JM

No.

OK. Well, it must be rare indeed (thank goodness) because I've never come in contact with it. That's why I wondered if you meant Premil. No insult to your intelligence intended

I think you'd find that progressive dispys tend to be less dogmatic about pre or post trib. There is more room in that system for the possibility of post-trib.

On that note, I haven't found too many works really dealing in depth with Progressive Dispensationalism. I've seen a few that talk all about Dispensationalism with an added chapter or appendix on PD, but that's not giving PD the credit it deserves as a system. Saucy's Case for Progressive Dispensationalism is a heavy exegetical work that honestly tries to work through many points of contention.

I'm not aware of a significant Covenantal critique of PD, but I'm interested if there is one.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Originally Posted by kalawine

BTW Dispensationalism seems like pure heresy to me. Maybe I'm being too harsh.

Yes, you are.

But the theology itself seems like heresy to me; especially when taken to it's logical conclusion.

And what might that be? Often those in oppostion view an "extreme" conclusion as logical. For instance, the logical conclusion of Calvinism is a lack of evangelism. Paedo baptism logically leads to baptismal regeneration. Dispensationalism logically leads to Arminianism, or Open Theism. Covenantalism logically leads to NPP.

Originally Posted by mshingler

I think you'd find that progressive dispys tend to be less dogmatic about pre or post trib. There is more room in that system for the possibility of post-trib.

You'll find many who don't dogmatically hold to a seven year trib as well, and see more fulfillment in seventy AD than most dispies.

First of all, I disagree that Calvinism taken to it's logical conclusion leads to a lack of evangelism and that Paedo baptism leads to baptismal regeneration.

Second, I believe that Dispensationalism does away with the necessity of the cross. Christianity has always held that the purpose of Jesus' first coming was to die on the cross for the sins and salvation of his elect people. (True) Dispensationalism teaches that he came to establish an earthly kingdom which "his people," the Jews, rejected. Because of his rejection by the Jews he had to resort to "Plan B" and come up with a new idea (the Church).

Third, I believe that Progressive Dispensationalism is a last ditch effort to make the whole system orthodox. I see what the PD's are attempting and I honor their desire to be orthodox. But I can't help but say, "Let it go." There were better ideas before this one came along. Not only that, but we all (Reformed believers) have to be honest with ourselves... God has not had different means for different people in different dispensations to be saved. It was by grace through faith at the beginning, it's by grace through faith now and it will always be by grace through faith.

I don't mean to attack those who believe in it as non-Christians. I was dispensational after I was saved and before I was reformed. Please recieve my post as it is intended... not as an attack but an expression of my beliefs

Kevin,

I have noticed that former anythings tend to be the most intolerant of those who still hold to the view/habit they have jettisoned/overcome. Ex-Roman Catholics and dry alcoholics are two examples of classes that are famous for their intolerance of their former situations.

I was never far enough into dispensationalism to be a very good dispi-hater now. Gerstner makes the point that dispensationalism taken in its "classical" expression leads to a denial of the cross of Christ. But, since I don't know any "classical" dispensationalists, the allegation would seem to miss the point in the world we live in today.

Frankly, while Calvinism has as its overarching idea a soteriological focus, dispensationalism is focused on a doxological one, the "glory" of God. Insofar as all of the dispensational teachers, writers, spokespersons I know are thoroughly orthodox, it is difficult for me to take the heretical charge too seriously.

Are they in error? Absolutely! Would it be better for them to discover a more historical Christian eschatology? Yes, yesterday! Orthodox Historic premils, Amils, and Postmils all believe in the blessed hope that Jesus will come to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. And, they do it without separating the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom of God, differentiating the coming from the appearing, or multiplying the second comings into phases. But "pure heresy"???

Frankly, I would rather deal with a Calvinistic dispensationalist than an Arminian non-dispensationalist. While I would never want to get Johnny Mac mad at me (he is one scary guy!), his value as a brother in Christ is evident, even by TR teachers who invite him to speak at their conferences.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Kevin,

I have noticed that former anythings tend to be the most intolerant of those who still hold to the view/habit they have jettisoned/overcome. Ex-Roman Catholics and dry alcoholics are two examples of classes that are famous for their intolerance of their former situations.

I was never far enough into dispensationalism to be a very good dispi-hater now. Gerstner makes the point that dispensationalism taken in its "classical" expression leads to a denial of the cross of Christ. But, since I don't know any "classical" dispensationalists, the allegation would seem to miss the point in the world we live in today.

Frankly, while Calvinism has as its overarching idea a soteriological focus, dispensationalism is focused on a doxological one, the "glory" of God. Insofar as all of the dispensational teachers, writers, spokespersons I know are thoroughly orthodox, it is difficult for me to take the heretical charge too seriously.

Are they in error? Absolutely! Would it be better for them to discover a more historical Christian eschatology? Yes, yesterday! Orthodox Historic premils, Amils, and Postmils all believe in the blessed hope that Jesus will come to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. And, they do it without separating the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom of God, differentiating the coming from the appearing, or multiplying the second comings into phases. But "pure heresy"???

Frankly, I would rather deal with a Calvinistic dispensationalist than an Arminian non-dispensationalist. While I would never want to get Johnny Mac mad at me (he is one scary guy!), his value as a brother in Christ is evident, even by TR teachers who invite him to speak at their conferences.

Hmmm... you've given me some real good points to take into consideration.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

I was never far enough into dispensationalism to be a very good dispi-hater now.

I can't say that I was either. As a Southern Baptist I was sort of dispi by default.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Gerstner makes the point that dispensationalism taken in its "classical" expression leads to a denial of the cross of Christ. But, since I don't know any "classical" dispensationalists, the allegation would seem to miss the point in the world we live in today.

I can go along with this though I do believe that dispensationalists need to be aware (and taught - maybe they are - I don't know) that their system in it's classical stage did involve a very bad (to put it lightly) soteriology.
I will admit though that I have a weakness toward any system that I believe has a bad foundation. I guess I should reneg on the "heresy" charge. But I still think that Prog Dispi is trying to build a 2nd floor where the foundation has already proven to be faulty.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Kevin,

I have noticed that former anythings tend to be the most intolerant of those who still hold to the view/habit they have jettisoned/overcome. Ex-Roman Catholics and dry alcoholics are two examples of classes that are famous for their intolerance of their former situations.

I was never far enough into dispensationalism to be a very good dispi-hater now. Gerstner makes the point that dispensationalism taken in its "classical" expression leads to a denial of the cross of Christ. But, since I don't know any "classical" dispensationalists, the allegation would seem to miss the point in the world we live in today.

Frankly, while Calvinism has as its overarching idea a soteriological focus, dispensationalism is focused on a doxological one, the "glory" of God. Insofar as all of the dispensational teachers, writers, spokespersons I know are thoroughly orthodox, it is difficult for me to take the heretical charge too seriously.

Are they in error? Absolutely! Would it be better for them to discover a more historical Christian eschatology? Yes, yesterday! Orthodox Historic premils, Amils, and Postmils all believe in the blessed hope that Jesus will come to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. And, they do it without separating the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom of God, differentiating the coming from the appearing, or multiplying the second comings into phases. But "pure heresy"???

Frankly, I would rather deal with a Calvinistic dispensationalist than an Arminian non-dispensationalist. While I would never want to get Johnny Mac mad at me (he is one scary guy!), his value as a brother in Christ is evident, even by TR teachers who invite him to speak at their conferences.

Dennis, maybe it's time for you to take on another research project! Who believes what about the eschaton in American churches today and why. You know, during your spare time.

DMcFadden
McFadderator Minimizing


Are they in error? Absolutely! Would it be better for them to discover a more historical Christian eschatology? Yes, yesterday! Orthodox Historic premils, Amils, and Postmils all believe in the blessed hope that Jesus will come to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. And, they do it without separating the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom of God, differentiating the coming from the appearing, or multiplying the second comings into phases. But "pure heresy"???

Well said.

In public discourse, I think the Ninth Commandment constrains us not to overuse terms or use them perjoratively, particularly in describing brothers and sisters in Christ.

It is becoming more apparent to me that the effect of dispensational theology has a few tendencies:

1) "Cuts off" the Old Testament in terms of applicability to the life of a Christian today- that's 2/3 of God's Word!

2) Undermines the continuity and order of God's plans and purposes for His Creation

3) The focus of dispensationalism on man's time calendar, from man's point of view, tends to undermine the Sovereign nature of God.

More and more, with regard to a millennium, the idea of 1,000 of man's years (on the Gregorian Calendar) does not seem to me to be the center of God's plan. The same thing about 7 of man's years (Gregorian Calendar which did not exist when Scripture was cannonized) for tribulation.

I'm not settled on the implications of all this, only that dispensationalism's approach seems more man-centered than God-centered.

Last Friday, I downloaded and read the 1599 Geneva Bible's Revelation with notes. I wanted to see what Christianity's historic views are and read it in a Reformed framework.

I recommend reading it, it's quite simple. No complicated charts. And rather than excluding relevance to a brief period at the end of the world, the whole book of Revelation has a valuable message for us today.

Reading the Geneva Bible's notes was like discovering a book of the Bible for the first time.

Originally Posted by Peter H

Last Friday, I downloaded and read the 1599 Geneva Bible's Revelation with notes. I wanted to see what Christianity's historic views are and read it in a Reformed framework.

I recommend reading it, it's quite simple. No complicated charts. And rather than excluding relevance to a brief period at the end of the world, the whole book of Revelation has a valuable message for us today.

Reading the Geneva Bible's notes was like discovering a book of the Bible for the first time.

Sounds interesting. Can you provide the link please? Thank you.

GENEVA BIBLE 1599

Originally Posted by kalawine

Second, I believe that Dispensationalism does away with the necessity of the cross. Christianity has always held that the purpose of Jesus' first coming was to die on the cross for the sins and salvation of his elect people. (True) Dispensationalism teaches that he came to establish an earthly kingdom which "his people," the Jews, rejected. Because of his rejection by the Jews he had to resort to "Plan B" and come up with a new idea (the Church).

Kevin,

You're spot on with this point of dispensationalism. I am not a dispy-hater, but I was very steeped in dispensationalism. I have actually heard preachers say from the pulpit that God went to a "Plan B" somewhere about the 13th chapter of Matthew when the Jews obviously rejected Christ's kingdom.

That kind of belief seems to contradict the whole of Scripture. I'm not sure what it can be called, but for sure it's not Scriptural.

Praise be to God that a lot of dispensationalists don't view their theology this way (or at least there seems to be somewhat of a change concerning this view of a "Plan B" among dispensationalists).

Many, many good people are just steeped in the error of dispensationalism because they blindly follow their leaders on the matter. At least that's what I did. And yet I thank God for His grace that still enables these Christians to be used of God.

So to me, even though I came from a dispensational background I would never want to return to my roots in that area.

You can also find the Geneva Bible translations notes for E-Sword = e-Sword - the Sword of the LORD with an electronic edge

Originally Posted by JM

You can also find the Geneva Bible translations notes for E-Sword = e-Sword - the Sword of the LORD with an electronic edge

The e-Sword version is a good tool, however users should be aware that the notes are not all original (a fact not noted on the "information" page)--some have been altered to conform to baptist views (e.g. 1Cor7:14). I understand WHY they altered them, especially as it was a baptist group in the 1980s that republished the version which e-Sword got the electronic version of, but I do think that it should note that some of those notes are not all the 16th century Reformed version. In fairness to the e-Sword guy, I doubt that he was aware of the subtle changes.

Same deal with the notes on CrossWalk.com : Not to be confused with "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible" on Your Gateway to the Bible & Christian Resources which is not even a Geneva translation. All Geneva Bibles at Genesis 3:7 should read ...and made themselves breeches. Not aprons as the Crosswalk Geneva version and KJV have.

fDear Kevin,

If you choose to deny my statements in regard to Calvinism and Coventalism then first consider them in context of your statements. It was a comparison, not a claim.

Dear Ryan and Kevin,

It needs to be understood that the idea that there are two ways of salvation, while blasphemous, is not a necessary conclusion of dispensationalism. It's the "necessity" that is forced on the thought process that is central to the comparisons I made. There are many dispy preacher who teach this. I've heard it. I even thought if for a brief period. But it is neither a logical nor necessary conclusion of dispensationalism.

What are the core beliefs of dispensationalism? There are three. Perhaps that will help to clarify what is logical, what what is taken beyond reasonable conclusions.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Dear Ryan and Kevin,

It needs to be understood that the idea that there are two ways of salvation, while blasphemous, is not a necessary conclusion of dispensationalism. It's the "necessity" that is forced on the thought process that is central to the comparisons I made. There are many dispy preacher who teach this. I've heard it. I even thought if for a brief period. But it is neither a logical nor necessary conclusion of dispensationalism.

Hi Joe,

It was the necessary conclusion of the dispensationalism that I learned. I am thankful to know that there are dispensationalists that do not teach this way. Actually, now that I think about it there have been quite a few dispensationalists who I have heard teach that O.T. Saints are saved by grace by looking forward to the cross. So, it is true that there is a mixture in dispensationalism.

Blessings!

In keeping with what Joe said, we always need to consider the best proponents of any theological position. There are a lot of good targets to pick if you want to make any doctrine look bad, but that does little more than stroke our own ego.

I am anti-dispensational, but I am convinced that much of what I have heard from the Reformed group does not represent Dispensationalism in a very even light. Even those who "used to be Dispensationalists" often don't seem to have a very good grasp on the system as a whole, and I wonder if they really understand what they left behind and what they believe now.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

In keeping with what Joe said, we always need to consider the best proponents of any theological position. There are a lot of good targets to pick if you want to make any doctrine look bad, but that does little more than stroke our own ego.

I agree.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

I am anti-dispensational, but I am convinced that much of what I have heard from the Reformed group does not represent Dispensationalism in a very even light. Even those who "used to be Dispensationalists" often don't seem to have a very good grasp on the system as a whole, and I wonder if they really understand what they left behind and what they believe now.

I disagree. For those of us that were taught the two-salvation dispensationalism, we know exactly what it's about. That's why I related right away to Kevin's post. Trust me, when you've been there you know it.

Let's not pretend that the two-salvation dispensationalists don't exist, and not be afraid to call it what it is. It's a horrible error and comes from terrible exegesis of the Scriptures.

Hey, guys, just remember . . .

While the Baptists were running to the left (SBC up until the late 70s and ABC on the wrong side of every theological issue during the whole 20th century) and Presbyterians were either embracing neo-orthodoxy/liberalism or fragmenting into countless little micro-denominations, the dispensationalists were upholding the inerrancy of the Bible and the necessity of salvation by Christ alone AGAINST ALL COMERS! They preached, evangelized, discipled, covered the world as missionaries, raised up organizations to serve the church, promoted education in countless schools, colleges, and seminaries, and more.

I would hope that we could be a bit charitable towards our brethren in Christ who took most of the major hits in battle while so many of our groups were playing with our constitutions or cutting pages out of our Bibles.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

While the Baptists were running to the left (SBC up until the late 70s and ABC on the wrong side of every theological issue during the whole 20th century) and Presbyterians were either embracing neo-orthodoxy/liberalism or fragmenting into countless little micro-denominations, the dispensationalists were upholding the inerrancy of the Bible and the necessity of salvation by Christ alone AGAINST ALL COMERS! They preached, evangelized, discipled, covered the world as missionaries, raised up organizations to serve the church, promoted education in countless schools, colleges, and seminaries, and more.

Dennis,

Praise God for the dispensationalists that did all of these things in faithful service for our Lord.

I even know many two-salvation dispensationalists who did these things. Unfortunately their teaching on grace and law and the way of salvation in the O.T. have done a lot of damage as well.

Ryan,

Granted.

I guess there are two ways people go when they leave an old ideology behind. Some become like the ex-alcoholic and becme a scold and a prude. Others, remember with fondness the first flush of excitement and zeal and recall the earlier days with great tenderness. Drs. Gerstner, Palmer Robertson, and Riddlebarger are more like the second. Having outgrown their earlier years in dispensationalism, they are intellectually sharp critics as only a former insider can be. Yet, when you read their books, you sense the love and fondness they feel for their former co-religionists as well as the passion burning within them (much like the Apostle Paul towards his kinsmen "after the flesh") to see others come out of that camp.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Ryan,

Granted.

I guess there are two ways people go when they leave an old ideology behind. Some become like the ex-alcoholic and becme a scold and a prude. Others, remember with fondness the first flush of excitement and zeal and recall the earlier days with great tenderness. Drs. Gerstner, Palmer Robertson, and Riddlebarger are more like the second. Having outgrown their earlier years in dispensationalism, they are intellectually sharp critics as only a former insider can be. Yet, when you read their books, you sense the love and fondness they feel for their former co-religionists as well as the passion burning within them (much like the Apostle Paul towards his kinsmen "after the flesh") to see others come out of that camp.

Hey Dennis,

I can't speak for others, but I hold no ill will toward my dispensational brethren.

However, and it's a big however, I feel no fondness toward the Ruckman crowd I used to be a part of. Their teachings, including their teaching on dispensationalism, is filled with private interpretations. And it is doing damage to young Christians, some of whom I still personally know. It saddens me.